| Avoiding the super obvious scenarios such as paying to get shop-only brokenly overpower stat gear or paying to basically beat the game. A few scenarios for you to respond to. (Sorry if the formats a pain in the ass.) Which of these would you consider P2W and not? 1. A game where you can pay extra fees to increase inventory like storage space but nothing that'll give you a battle advantage over another player. 1.a. No way to transfer items other than trashing it. No trading. 1.b. Trading allowed. Can go through the trouble of making alt accounts for muling purposes. 1.c. The game provides a way for anyone to increase their storage space but requires rare items/difficult to do on top of those who can simply pay for it. 2. A game where you can pay to do things you can already do but at a faster pace. Pay to speed up process basically. Like say increasing exp gain rates, both players will eventually get to X level but the paying one will get there faster or content you can only run X times per day unless you pay to reset to run more. 2.a. Has limited timed events with certain difficulties which may require certain levels to complete or need to be done within x amount of time/days. Anyone can clear assuming they run play daily but missing enough will ensure failing and not getting the reward but if willing to pay, can catch up or clear faster. 2.b. Has content with an unlimited frame time in which anyone can do it can do them, paying players can just do them earlier for meeting the requirement faster. 3. A collection based game heavily relying on gacha related rewards, like card games. Similar to B but unlike it, the gacha is heavily RNG, both kind of players can use it but can only use it a certain amount of times with special in-game currency which can be obtain slowly in game, while those paying can roll again by paying. 4. A game with various combinations of the above. 5. Any other questionable/debatable scenarios. Feel free to add or mention anything related or just respond to the title question if you don't want to go through each. |
PaulDec 23, 2016 9:13 PM
| Adding a stupidly OP item that can ONLY be purchased with real money (this doesn't include the ones you can get with grinding). |
    |
Zephaas said: Adding a stupidly OP item that can ONLY be purchased with real money (this doesn't include the ones you can get with grinding). Nah some 3D MMORPGs will at least make it "fair" in a sense that other users can still get the item in Dungeons or stuff like that, but will likely have a hard time...xD |
Zephaas said: Adding a stupidly OP item that can ONLY be purchased with real money (this doesn't include the ones you can get with grinding). My first line... and that's not much of a point anymore than it blatantly obvious PW2. Would be better if you didn't include the bit in the parenthesis. Adds more discussion whether or not it or isn't; a item players can get while grinding but paying players can get it via cash. Things like how to get it also plays a big part too, like guaranteed rewards or rng from monster farming. |
| If it affects gameplay and gives you an advantage over others who don't pay, it's p2w. And no, "pay 2 not grind" is still "p2w". P2W soesn't necessarily make a game bad. I thoroughly enjoyed Mabinogi. It's just a label. |
 |
PeenusWeenusCaim said: If it affects gameplay and gives you an advantage over others who don't pay, it's p2w. And no, "pay 2 not grind" is still "p2w". P2W soesn't necessarily make a game bad. I thoroughly enjoyed Mabinogi. It's just a label. So would you agree that most, if not all, forms of paying to speed up process to be considered P2W even though players who don't pay will eventually reach the same stature? |
Paul said: Yes. Time is a valuable resource.PeenusWeenusCaim said: If it affects gameplay and gives you an advantage over others who don't pay, it's p2w. And no, "pay 2 not grind" is still "p2w". P2W soesn't necessarily make a game bad. I thoroughly enjoyed Mabinogi. It's just a label. So would you agree that most, if not all, forms of paying to speed up process to be considered P2W even though players who don't pay will eventually reach the same stature? |
|
Paul said: PeenusWeenusCaim said: If it affects gameplay and gives you an advantage over others who don't pay, it's p2w. And no, "pay 2 not grind" is still "p2w". P2W soesn't necessarily make a game bad. I thoroughly enjoyed Mabinogi. It's just a label. So would you agree that most, if not all, forms of paying to speed up process to be considered P2W even though players who don't pay will eventually reach the same stature? I think you got to take degrees into account, personally. Ultimately the guy who spends the most time playing, and is the most serious about progression will get the furthest ahead in MMOs. If a system is in place that favors spending money but also allows free players to compete in the endgame experience, I wouldn't go as far as to call that pay to win. However, if there are things that you can only experience optimally while spending money, I'd have no trouble calling that pay to win. There is a huge difference with selling a few quality of life items and cosmetics, and selling actual game functionality. |
PeenusWeenusCaim said: If it affects gameplay and gives you an advantage over others who don't pay, it's p2w. And no, "pay 2 not grind" is still "p2w". P2W soesn't necessarily make a game bad. I thoroughly enjoyed Mabinogi. It's just a label. ^this Jump potions and EXP boosts piss me off and make me feel less committed to a game instantly, cause I know all my hard work was instantly bought by some wagecuck who has no time to learn the game. fucking normies REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE |
 |
| Let's say there isn't a PvP system and there is no form of 'winning' but the game still has a cash shop system with additional features to what free players have. Would one consider that P2W? Should the term Pay To Win be taken to such a literal sense it's limited to 'winning'? Or has the phrase evolved to be more than just that? |
Paul said: Then it isn't a game.and there is no form of 'winning' |
|
You can win MMOs?? |
| Of course. A dev implements raids and dungeons. You completing them is part of winning. The devs implement a player economy with hierarchies and expensive gear to trade so becoming rich and obtaining that expensive gear is part of winning. A dev implements levels so leveling up is part of winning. A dev implements a ranking system so reaching the top of that ranking system is part of winning the game. If there's no winning, then that implies the removal of challenge which then means it's not a game since games are about challenges. |
|
PeenusWeenusCaim said: Of course. A dev implements raids and dungeons. You completing them is part of winning. The devs implement a player economy with hierarchies and expensive gear to trade so becoming rich and obtaining that expensive gear is part of winning. A dev implements levels so leveling up is part of winning. A dev implements a ranking system so reaching the top of that ranking system is part of winning the game. Almost every game specifically comes down to numbers and getting those numbers to the top is part of winning. I can't really see leveling up and becoming rich ingame much as winning but I do see the raid a part. I've always considered leaderboard systems semi-PvP since it is against other players. Things like doing the high damage and what not has always felt more like self satisfaction than winning. |
Paul said: All games essentially come down to challenges and getting satisfaction from completing those challenges. Getting your damage high is an example of a challenge since it requires effort. Same as getting rich and leveling up. Completing that challenge means your winning. Satisfaction comes from winning. Someone paying to finish or put less effort into completing that challenge is thus "pay 2 winning".PeenusWeenusCaim said: Of course. A dev implements raids and dungeons. You completing them is part of winning. The devs implement a player economy with hierarchies and expensive gear to trade so becoming rich and obtaining that expensive gear is part of winning. A dev implements levels so leveling up is part of winning. A dev implements a ranking system so reaching the top of that ranking system is part of winning the game. Almost every game specifically comes down to numbers and getting those numbers to the top is part of winning. I can't really see leveling up and becoming rich ingame much as winning but I do see the raid a part. I've always considered leaderboard systems semi-PvP since it is against other players. Things like doing the high damage and what not has always felt more like self satisfaction than winning |
|
Darek said: And even if the non-paying players can get the same things as the ones who pay, such as cards in card games or characters in games like LoL then that is still P2W in my book. Yea, I mostly wanted more see more opinions on features like that. |
Paul said: Zephaas said: Adding a stupidly OP item that can ONLY be purchased with real money (this doesn't include the ones you can get with grinding). My first line... and that's not much of a point anymore than it blatantly obvious PW2. Would be better if you didn't include the bit in the parenthesis. Adds more discussion whether or not it or isn't; a item players can get while grinding but paying players can get it via cash. Things like how to get it also plays a big part too, like guaranteed rewards or rng from monster farming. If the item can still be bought with in-game credits then it's less pay2win and more of a way to skip the grinding I don't really care. |
|
| A game can be considered p2w instantly and it's just bad, you only have to look at its own design, some games are meant to be weapon factories for example when it's not ok to have 20 types of the same weapon around, so ofc this fits a shop dealing with real currency at some point. |
| I consider most of the scenarios the OP posted to be Pay to Win, even paying for more inventory space or faster levelling is pay to win because you are making those purchases with the intent of winning. Additionally, I consider power creeping on new items/characters, with the option to purchase said items/characters to also be Pay to Win. LoL has been very guilty of this in the past at least (I don't play MOBAs anymore). |
Zephaas said: If the item can still be bought with in-game credits then it's less pay2win and more of a way to skip the grinding I don't really care. Looking at my post after the fact, I should probably preface this by mentioning I haven't touched League in years and I'm only really bringing it up as an example since it immediately comes to mind when I think about this point. I unlinked the the code on message since I'm not really trying to reply to you, since I doubt this subject would interest you. It's created more as a reply to the thread in general. For me, it really depends on what the grind is for. In League, people buy accounts to get around the excessively long grind to LV30 since it's their smurf account and they don't want to have to deal with shit like no rune pages or summoner skills missing. In this case where the grind does literally nothing for the player except put them behind a time wall, I don't care about people purchasing accounts. This kind of thing only gimps the player instead of letting them ease into the game. A series of optional tutorials could be in the game and it would make a bigger difference to the quality of players than the LV30 model. On the other hand, unlocking things using money in League is kind of a grey zone for me. The newer champions take so long to get through grinding, so it's kind of a piss off to see people who have it because they handed over money. When I grind for something and anticipate it, that eventual purchase feels much more cherished and I'm more likely to respect the thing I worked hard for. People who hand over cash for it are the biggest tools I have ever seen. Cosmetics are okay, as long as there's some way to grind out for it too. I don't mind seeing people pay for those I guess. Things like multipliers are fucking awful and need to get the fuck out. Something I'm considering as an afterthought is whether this kind of thing influences whether I quit. I believe I quit because I hated the game and the players most of all, but I guess I could blame the presence of money as a bigger part of why I quit than I care to admit. I probably wouldn't blame it as anything more than 25% of the reason, but it was still a factor. Most other games where money is present I tend to have a shorter stay on. |
|
| It should be "substance over form". A F2P game is P2W if it has the effect of P2W, regardless of how it's implemented. A few examples may be: 1. While a "booster" type of microtransaction generally only provides speed-ups, if the booster in question so drastically influence the drop rate of end-game equipment, then it may indeed have a P2W effect. 2. On the other hand, even if a game openly sells gameplay-items like equipment and whatnot, if those equipment are generally on par with equipment that's relatively easy to obtain through normal play, then it may be meaningless enough to not have a P2W effect. Admittedly, this can be rare, and indicate a poorly designed microtransaction more than anything else. 3. Depending on the genre, even extra inventory space may be P2W. For example, what if the game is heavily focused on exploration and collection, and a player's ability to progress and succeed in the game directly correlate to their inventory space? 4. What about a fashion-based genre (i.e. ones on mobile), where players' winning condition is to arrive at cosmetic designs that would win votes and whatnot, does that then make cosmetic upgrades also P2W, since that's the whole point of the game? At the end of the day, rather than trying to define this and that, does it really matter all that much if a game is P2W? There are different degrees, different scenarios, and more often than not don't gamers themselves approve and condemn games with microtransactions on a case by case basis? Hearthstone is clearly P2W to a fair degree, but.. that's fine. |
More topics from this board
» What are you playing right now? (v2) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )anime-prime - Oct 4, 2020 |
3718 |
by Altaan
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» Is the idea that a game needs to respect your time a contradiction on the fundamental concept of video gamesReshiram_IX - Sep 21 |
11 |
by Nette
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Did anyone here own a Wii U?Yuno - 6 hours ago |
1 |
by Sadahon
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» First Pokémon gameani2016 - Aug 18 |
36 |
by Clonazenyan
»»
5 hours ago |
|
» Nintendo is suing PalworldDumb - Sep 18 |
22 |
by ArabianLuffy
»»
Yesterday, 6:17 AM |